I may need more coffee - but please explain how you can say "I don't think there are no gods" and then say "I also don't think there are gods." It's making my brain hurt.

(I'm going to equate think with believe, because for all itents and purposes they are the same here).

Not Believing/thinking in one thing does not automatically mean believing/thinking in the opposite. If there is not enough information for either case, then neither are believed/thought to be the case, even though it is acknowledged that one must be the case.

For example, there are either an even or odd number of blades of grass on my lawn at any one time. While I acknowledge that there are either an even or odd number of blades, I currently don't have the information to make a decision to believe/think that there are an even number or odd number.

Logged

Christian: "My faith grows every day."Atheist: "So does rhubarb, and for the same reason."

(I'm going to equate think with believe, because for all itents and purposes they are the same here).

Not Believing/thinking in one thing does not automatically mean believing/thinking in the opposite. If there is not enough information for either case, then neither are believed/thought to be the case, even though it is acknowledged that one must be the case.

For example, there are either an even or odd number of blades of grass on my lawn at any one time. While I acknowledge that there are either an even or odd number of blades, I currently don't have the information to make a decision to believe/think that there are an even number or odd number.

Thanks for clarifying. Wouldn't that make you just agnostic then?

Full Definition of AGNOSTIC (Merriam-Webster)

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Logged

"Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true. " ~ Thomas Paine

(I'm going to equate think with believe, because for all itents and purposes they are the same here).

Not Believing/thinking in one thing does not automatically mean believing/thinking in the opposite. If there is not enough information for either case, then neither are believed/thought to be the case, even though it is acknowledged that one must be the case.

For example, there are either an even or odd number of blades of grass on my lawn at any one time. While I acknowledge that there are either an even or odd number of blades, I currently don't have the information to make a decision to believe/think that there are an even number or odd number.

Thanks for clarifying. Wouldn't that make you just agnostic then?

Full Definition of AGNOSTIC (Merriam-Webster)

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

I could argue that it just makes me agnostic (and some do), but if I fit the criteria of an atheist (in not believing gods exist), then I'd say that makes me an atheist too.

Logged

Christian: "My faith grows every day."Atheist: "So does rhubarb, and for the same reason."

Shifted from agnostic atheist to gnostic atheist recently based on overwhelming evidence imo of no God. Creation is sufficiently becoming explained, life is understood and supernatural type experiences are covered by neurobiological and psychiatric explanations.

It is not reasonable to claim doubt when science furnishes us with about 99.99999999... percent proof of no God (as characterised by typical God proponents) and no proof whatsoever of God/s.I think to fence sit with agnosticism atheism is symptomatic of holding out hope due to some kind of psychological difficulty with truth... some sort of God wish hangover caught from world culture!

Paradoxically (tho not really) it is transcendent (some might call it spiritual) experiences of sudden insight that came to both me and patients as I nursed the dying that gradually... yet powerfully convinced me there is no God. One life, no soul, a unitary brain/mind. :police:The "explanatory gap" is fabricated BS, our brain is fully capable of producing qualia.

Shifted from agnostic atheist to gnostic atheist recently based on overwhelming evidence imo of no God. Creation is sufficiently becoming explained,

Doesn't that depend on what god is being defined? If it's the literal Biblegod who never deceives and creates the world in 6 days 6000 years ago etc, then we can say that god doesn't exist because the evidence points to a different model. However, if it's a simple deist god with no real strings attached, void of ever being able to be falsified, then it follows that there can't be evidence that this god doesn't exist.

Quote

life is understood and supernatural type experiences are covered by neurobiological and psychiatric explanations.

Correct... to an extent. Any "supernatural" experience is immediately swallowed up by a natural explanation and therefore at least becomes indistinguishable from a natural experience. To experience the supernatural is akin to reaching tomorrow. However, just because the supernatural is beyond experience doesn't mean that it's existence is eliminated, only that it's indistinguishable from not existing.

Quote

It is not reasonable to claim doubt when science furnishes us with about 99.99999999... percent proof of no God (as characterised by typical God proponents) and no proof whatsoever of God/s.

I disagree, for the same reason I explain to theists. It is beyond the scope of science to provide evidence for gods existence or non-existence. The only way it can contradict a god is if that god is defined as creating the world a certain way yet the evidence points to the world working a different way.However, we could explain how everything in the universe works using the scientific method, but that method will not eliminate a god being behind all of those naturalistic explanations.

Quote

I think to fence sit with agnosticism atheism is symptomatic of holding out hope due to some kind of psychological difficulty with truth... some sort of God wish hangover caught from world culture!

Not at all, for me anyway. It's just intellectual honesty because epistemology is a slippery fish. This doesn't just apply to gods - this applies to anything anyone can ever conceive or imagine up that has no evidence of existence in the world that can be perceived. God is the hangover because god is just flavour of the month, but this also applies to universe creating pixies, the FSM, spiritualism, mermaids, leprechauns, jkgsh84t4hg and anything else indistinct from made up bullshit.

Quote

Paradoxically (tho not really) it is transcendent (some might call it spiritual) experiences of sudden insight that came to both me and patients as I nursed the dying that gradually... yet powerfully convinced me there is no God. One life, no soul, a unitary brain/mind. :police:The "explanatory gap" is fabricated BS, our brain is fully capable of producing qualia.

I don't find personal experiences to be a good way of establishing what is real/true, regardless of whether they are personal experiences of god, personal experiences that convince someone there is no god or something else, say personal experiences of seeing dead people. Such subjectivity just puts everybody on a level playing field.So, if you don't find someone's personal experience of god to be convincing, then any you have yourself should be given the same consideration.

Logged

Christian: "My faith grows every day."Atheist: "So does rhubarb, and for the same reason."

Shifted from agnostic atheist to gnostic atheist recently based on overwhelming evidence imo of no God. Creation is sufficiently becoming explained,

Doesn't that depend on what god is being defined? If it's the literal Biblegod who never deceives and creates the world in 6 days 6000 years ago etc, then we can say that god doesn't exist because the evidence points to a different model. However, if it's a simple deist god with no real strings attached, void of ever being able to be falsified, then it follows that there can't be evidence that this god doesn't exist.man has no interest in a god that is/says/does nothing and such a god is not even worth wasting a thought on or debunking... as if it has no agency then its essentially a non entity. This conceptualisation is just moving goalposts to tangent off any helpful inquiry. I think atheists are better dealing with real illusions being propagated by the orthodox and new age religions - this involves understanding how they are packaging their gods to occupy the ever shrinking margins of science

Quote

life is understood and supernatural type experiences are covered by neurobiological and psychiatric explanations.

Correct... to an extent. Any "supernatural" experience is immediately swallowed up by a natural explanation and therefore at least becomes indistinguishable from a natural experience. To experience the supernatural is akin to reaching tomorrow. However, just because the supernatural is beyond experience doesn't mean that it's existence is eliminated, only that it's indistinguishable from not existing.

Which gives it a weak evidential strength - beyond weak actually, pitiful. It is a reasonable leap and not large to say that if it is indistinguishable from something nonexistent it probably is non existent. Knowing in many cases must be about probabilities not absolute proof, sufficient info should enable a non tentative claim to know imo or else we would be paralysed in many ways

Quote

It is not reasonable to claim doubt when science furnishes us with about 99.99999999... percent proof of no God (as characterised by typical God proponents) and no proof whatsoever of God/s.

I disagree, for the same reason I explain to theists. It is beyond the scope of science to provide evidence for gods existence or non-existence. The only way it can contradict a god is if that god is defined as creating the world a certain way yet the evidence points to the world working a different way.However, we could explain how everything in the universe works using the scientific method, but that method will not eliminate a god being behind all of those naturalistic explanations.

REASONABLENESS - we could demonstrate that every Santa Xmas is a mum or dad over 100 years, that doesn't exclude a real Santa who hasn't been on the job in a century but its fairly conclusive. If you still believe in Santa despite 100 yrs peer reviewed research and video surveillance footage let me sell you some real estate on Xenu where L Ron Hubbard awaits

Quote

I think to fence sit with agnosticism atheism is symptomatic of holding out hope due to some kind of psychological difficulty with truth... some sort of God wish hangover caught from world culture!

Not at all, for me anyway. It's just intellectual honesty because epistemology is a slippery fish. This doesn't just apply to gods - this applies to anything anyone can ever conceive or imagine up that has no evidence of existence in the world that can be perceived. God is the hangover because god is just flavour of the month, but this also applies to universe creating pixies, the FSM, spiritualism, mermaids, leprechauns, jkgsh84t4hg and anything else indistinct from made up bullshit.

Sory but I see it as a failure of honesty given the weight of evidence against any God of normal human ascribed attributes or of any other sort for that matter, say evidence dictates there is only a chance in a billion billion that in some universe there is a pink unicorn and because we can't get there to falsify - this is not a good reason to leave the door on this open, it is more intellectually deluded than to close it imo - or be accused of being a crazy dreamer

Quote

Paradoxically (tho not really) it is transcendent (some might call it spiritual) experiences of sudden insight that came to both me and patients as I nursed the dying that gradually... yet powerfully convinced me there is no God. One life, no soul, a unitary brain/mind. :police:The "explanatory gap" is fabricated BS, our brain is fully capable of producing qualia.

I don't find personal experiences to be a good way of establishing what is real/true, regardless of whether they are personal experiences of god, personal experiences that convince someone there is no god or something else, say personal experiences of seeing dead people. Such subjectivity just puts everybody on a level playing field.So, if you don't find someone's personal experience of god to be convincing, then any you have yourself should be given the same consideration.

Im not asking you to be persuaded by my experience, merely relaying it. You cant falsify that my miraculously complex brain has not fired off at some synapses creating a perfect model that proves God does not exist, however one so complex I was able to pattern intuit its meaning yet am unable to annotate and communicate the model - so if you want to maintain consistency with not closing the door on a non falsifiable God in interets of intellectual fussiness then I dont think you should deny the capacity of my brain to have solved the question in such a way I lack the language capability to communicate. Our language and manifest culture lags markedly behind our cognitive capabilities

I've seen a lot of arguments about "agnosticism" vs" Agnostic Atheism" (i.e. the undecided viewpoint) btw the argument wasn't on this forum. Anyway I just thought this would be a good place to post a link to this:

I've seen a lot of arguments about "agnosticism" vs" Agnostic Atheism" (i.e. the undecided viewpoint) btw the argument wasn't on this forum. Anyway I just thought this would be a good place to post a link to this:

We weren't expecting you just yet. We thought we'd have to wait til June. But welcome.

From my perspective, after wading through all the specifics offered by the linked article, how I define my atheism is of more importance to me than how it is labeled by others. The author seemed a bit too anal to me, and very few folks have shown up here interest in anything more than the standard dichotomy; is there a god or not.

So while I realize that very detailed definitions exist for the variations (and your link is certainly complete in that department), I don't think the details are too important. The recent arguments we've had with a theist or two on this subject was never about the exact definition, though the theists sometimes pretended it was. Rather, it was about them demanding that we accept everything they say as gospel, and it was about their incredulity that we don't. And sadly, that is usually the best a theist can do around here. Most of are patiently waiting for someone to show up who can argue for theism without insisting that we agree with all of their assumptions and definitions to begin with. And none of them seem to be able to be as eloquent as the linked article.

I've seen a lot of arguments about "agnosticism" vs" Agnostic Atheism" (i.e. the undecided viewpoint) btw the argument wasn't on this forum. Anyway I just thought this would be a good place to post a link to this:

You know, humans have this thing about classifying things but the person you link to has gone mad to classify anything anyone might think! It believe and non-belief were clear cut - maybe evidence - then it would, sort of, make sense. As it is, it seems like someone telling me what I think. Not the way to go.

For starters, it doesn't account for people like my son who thinks there is nothing worth thinking about religion or lack of it. He is completely disinterested in the whole subject. What does that make him? I, having studied theology at university level, conclude there is nothing in the way of evidence for the existence of any god - just like most people don't believe in Odin though, oddly, we mark him weekly in the day named after him, Wednesday!

Where do you fit on the range of opinions, summersolstice?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

You want to careful criticing the author of that Link:I'm the author! Don't worry I'm not offended:) the article was me trying resolve disputes I'd Seen on youtube regarding agnosticism and atheism(their meaning) I reasearched It and read somewhere (can't remember where) that the definition of atheism had been "diluted" hence the dispute:)

Anyway for quite a while I have thought It doesn't matter what a word means along as people you're talking to know what you mean

It has wisely been brought to my attention that my comment above about the article posted by summersolstice was harsh for no reason. And my harshness was made worse by the fact that she, a new person here who is most definitely one of us, was the author of said article. There was nothing I disagreed with in her post, I just commented a bit too freely about how I thought it was overly detailed, and I chose to use a word that is seldom welcomed by its recipients.

I was wrong to savage an article that I didn't disagree with in any way. And I was wrong to berate merely because my tolerance for detail is close to zero. I live on a planet with 7 billion others, and I need to learn that my standards don't satisfy everyone else, so I shouldn't expect only my criterion to be met.